radiofree.asia

Category: Afghanistan

  • I Remember It, Well….

    Fame is fleeting. We may be a Facebook celebrity today with ‘likes’ in the six digits, only to find as time goes by that the balance is shifting daily as we fade into the oblivion from which we emerged. Pretty much the same phenomenon is discernible in regard to the attention paid historical events. Images blur, and then most slip out of consciousness. It seems especially pronounced these days. Forgetfulness, whether due to a studied attempt to suppress the past or the kicking-in of self-defense instincts on a mass scale, reminds us of George Orwell’s “memory hole’ in 1984. As Orwell understood when he created the “memory hole” concept, the erasure or sublimation of memory makes it easier to shape the present by controlling or editing history. Doing so also serves to preserve a mythic version of a country’s identity. Most broadly, a memory hole is any psychological mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing past events. Orwell’s Ministry of Truth made sure that its manipulations were complete and irreversible. What we experience today is something less draconian and directed. Memories do survive, but they usually are vague and distorted. They are prone to be blended into benign fable.

    These thoughts about the transitory nature of things arose while perusing a collection of old clippings. Let’s consider some of them.

    Image: ASCF News

    1. Quemoy & Matsu. For those youthful readers, they are two tiny islands lying just off the coast of China but occupied by the Nationalists ensconced on Taiwan under our protection. In the late 1950s, they were a hot topic. The issue of whether and how to defend them figured prominently in the Kennedy-Nixon debates – right up there with the ‘missile gap’ (paranoid fiction) and Nixon’s 5 o’clock shadow. Pundits concluded that the debates, along with Richard Daley’s creative arithmetic in tabulating the Cook County vote, put JFK in the White House. At the time, there was widespread fear that the dispute could be the flashpoint for war with Beijing issuing 1,500 or so ‘final warnings’ that we had better turn them over to the PRC – or else. Mention the words Quemoy and Matsu these days, and the only response would be a request for the newly opened restaurant’s address.

    Quemoy & Matsu yesterday; the Spratleys today.

    In 1958, the PRC was an enemy. Nowadays, it is a competitor – at worst. However, too many in Washington’s corridors of power ‘need’ an enemy – for strategic, material or emotional reasons. Russia and/or Iran do not suffice. For China’s uniqueness lies in its potential – based on its very success – to challenge Americans’ atavistic article of faith that the United States is destined to serve as the world’s paramount power and leading light. America must beat the Chinese in order to confirm that foundational truth.

    2. Crucial breakthroughs in anti-submarine technology – by the Soviets. As the “balance-of-terror” became institutionalized with the appurtenances of MAD, mental space opened for a fresh source of worry. Since the Pentagon & friends cannot tolerate a threat vacuum, anonymous reports started to appear which noted with alarm that the critical pillar of the deterrent triad composed of nuclear submarines carrying MIRVED missiles was in danger of being menaced by the Russkis’ development of diabolically capable attack submarines. The Cassandras claimed that their deployments gave Moscow an incentive to launch a first strike at a time of crisis.

    Outcome? Nothing consequential. Sober analysis showed that the risk was inflated, our 20,000+ warhead arsenal was kept intact, and then the USSR disappeared from the strategic map. Now, of course, Putin is taken to be the avatar of Khrushchev, Russia’s hypersonic missiles are reason/excuse to accelerate our own $1 trillion upgrade, and nobody talks about submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) – much less their fanciful vulnerability. Yet, they are the ultimate factor ensuring the credibility of Mutual Assured Destruction.

    There is no such thing as “nuclear superiority” between the great powers. The present ‘race’ to develop more refined missile delivery systems (which the Russian are ‘winning’) will not change that basic truth. For 75 years, military planners and analysts have bandied about a variety of ideas for ‘operationalizing’ nuclear weapons.

    Fortunately, they never have been activated (TNWs a partial exception). No leader of a nuclear state has placed a hovering finger over the ‘button.’ Sanity ruled their thinking/emotions. That may now have changed given that sanity is no longer a requisite for being commander-in-chief of a nuclear power.

    The one state that conceivably could use a nuclear explosive as a weapon of war is rabidly, fanatical Israel.

    3. Fulda Gap. For decades, anyone with the slightest claim to expertise about national security and NATO was on intimate terms with the ‘Fulda gap.’ It refers to that portion of the North German plain that represented the shortest route for the Red Army to take on its way to the Channel. The term can have a strategic as well as a territorial definition. For the ‘gap’ also was the dividing line between the bulk of the American forces in Germany who were deployed south of it and the allied forces deployed mainly to the north of it. Hence, double vulnerability. Nightmare visions of 40 Soviet armored divisions pouring through the Fulda gap spawned several innovative ‘solutions.’ They included the deployment of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in Western European available to staunch an otherwise irresistible Soviet advance overwhelming outnumbered, conventionally armed NATO troops. That was a Kennedy/McNamara initiative. The TNWs were deployed; some are still in place. Fortunately, the notion that this first-use resort to n-weapons could be operationalized without setting off massive strategic exchanges was never tested. Of course, we now know that the Kremlin never contemplated such a suicidal assault – as did a few sane heads back then.

    Little has been learned, though. These days, the Pentagon and NATO routinely sound the alarm that Putin’s truncated Russia poses a similar threat – despite the loss of all its Warsaw Pact allies and its Eastern European bases, despite NATO’s advance deployments to the Russian borders with Poland, the Baltics, and Finland — despite the inconvenient geographical fact that Russia’s army is 1,000 kilometers farther away from the Fulda gap. That army took three years to gain a decisive advantage over NATO’s Ukrainian auxiliaries. Moreover, there is no conceivable motive for such a crackpot move. For Russians to reach the Fulda Gap these days, they depend on tour coaches. Nobody uses the term ‘Fulda Gap’ in Washington. It’s too awkward for our war planners, but the mentality survives and thrives. History can repeat itself: first as drama, then as farce.

    4. Fantasy Provocations. In 1846, many American eyed enviously the Mexican territories North and West of the Rio Grande and Baja. Texans, who were still digesting the large morsel of real estate they had torn from Santa Ana, where among them – out of pure greed, and to gain ‘strategic depth’ I suppose. President James Polk, egged on by other hawkish empire-builders among the country’s political elite, was gung-ho for conquest. He was just looking for an excuse. There being none: he fabricated one. After Texas’ accession to the Union, a crisis was created by the Texans’ demand that the border be moved south from the Nueces River to the Rio Grande (lebensraum). When Mexican President Herrera balked, Polk ordered General (later President) Zachary Taylor to invade the disputed zone. Months later, the Mexicans dared to defend their territory. Polk raged that Mexico had “invaded our territory and shed American blood on American soil” – and sent to Congress an already drafted declaration of war.

    Public opinion was divided (among the vocal opponents was Congressman Abraham Lincoln), but the motto Manifest Destiny and the willful Washington government triumphed. We invaded Mexico, defeated them, occupied Mexico City and forced them to hand over the vast territory that ran to the Pacific. Probably the biggest land grab in history. Hence, Hollywood, Santa Fe, and Los Vegas.

    Greenland’s Destiny is now Manifest — in the eyes of the American Presidency. So, too, Canada.

    In 1898, a vigorous America feeling its oats began flexing its muscles – in Central America, in the Caribbean, in the Pacific Basin. McKinley was President. Expansionists fixed a covetous eye on the residual Spanish possessions of Cuba, Puerto Rico and – farther afield – the Philippine Islands. Spain was a decaying state whose tattered bits of empire scattered around the globe it could not defend. All that the United States needed to take them over was an excuse. As in 1848, they manufactured one. Many of us still “remember the Maine” – the U.S. flagged ship that blew up in Havana Harbor. The U.S. accused the colonial authorities there of deliberately destroying the ship. There was no plausible reason for them to do so – but it wasn’t reason that prevailed. Historians have established beyond a doubt that the Maine was sunk by an explosion that was caused by a spontaneous combustion of grain stored in its hull. No more than there was reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 or the aluminum tubes were the crucial ingredients of his non-existence nuclear weapons program. The outcome of the Spanish-American War: we got the dubious places we prized. We suppressed a 6-year Philippino resistance to our occupation that left about 400,000 ‘natives’ dead and devastated the country, and 40 years later, we were gone. Teddy Roosevelt rode his fame as leader of the ‘Rough Riders’ into the White House.

    In Panama, too, they speak Spanish.

    In 1958, we embarked on an uncannily similar performance in Indochina. That gruesome story has many chapters, punctuated in the end by humiliation and failure. The most notable repeat element was the artful fabrication of an incident that was exploited as an excuse for war: the infamous Tonkin Gulf encounter. The short version is simple. Senior Washington officials, led by Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy, were pressing very hard for a massive escalation of the American military intervention. JFK resisted the pressure and documentary evidence now suggests that he indeed reached the tentative conclusion to begin a withdrawal after the 1964 election. LBJ was also hesitant, but more ambivalent and in a weaker political position. McNamara and Bundy in fact sent Johnson a written ultimatum: either take the measures we are advocating, or we will denounce you as a weakling on national security during the upcoming campaign. It was a proposal that he could not refuse. So, the hunt for an excuse that would sway public opinion and justify a major war in Asia was on. It was found in a naval incident off the coast of North Vietnam. The official story was that an American vessel had been fired on by a Vietnamese gunboat. That was beefed-up as the casus belli for the disproportionate American retaliation which produced millions of casualties (mostly civilian) in all of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and among American forces (58,000 killed). The rest is a matter of record.

    So, keep a gimlet eye on the Persian Gulf. Then again, recent events tell us that these days we don’t need a contrived excuse to attack a sovereign country on the other side of the world that poses no threat to the United States.

    6. 50 METRICS
    In November-December 2009, President Obama found himself in a dilemma. It was the failure of the American project to foster a friendly, democratic Afghanistan. The enormous investment of military forces, cash and political advice had not paid the expected dividends. The Kabul government was incompetent, corrupt and riddled by warlord rivalry. The Taliban insurgency, spurred back to life by the ham-handed occupation, was thriving. The counter-insurgency was stymied in a stalemate. Obama’s instincts pointed him towards a lowering of the United States’ profile in acceptance that our goals were unreachable. However, no one in the administration’s national security team shared this sentiment – except for Vice-President Biden.

    Under the guidance of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the resisters formed a cabal to prevent Obama from acting on his instincts. It included Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullin, CIA Director David Petraeus, our newly appointed commander in Afghanistan Stanley McCrystal and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was selected to act as the ‘frontman’ for political reasons that included her personal standing with the President. They pressed hard for a different strategy that entailed an expansion of the residual reduced force in country by some 35,000 and a doubling down on our commitment to pre-existing objectives. Obama set aside his misgivings and yielded to the pressure. To cover himself, he took three exceptional steps. One, he lowered the size of the escalation. Two, he composed an elaborate, quasi-legal document that spelled out the terms and conditions of the strategy. It stipulated the sequence of actions and set deadlines. All of the main protagonists were obliged to sign what was a strange sort of pre-nuptial contract. Finally, Obama included 50 metrics by which to measure progress/success in the strategy’s implementation. That was done in order to avoid the fudging of future assessments and serve as benchmarks for later decisions. The punditry and the media made much of the 50 metrics which were broadly viewed as a sign of the President’s diligence and rigorous, lawyerly mind. That lasted for about 10 days. The metrics never again were to be mentioned in any public setting – or, as far as we know – in any private setting either.

    11 years and 3 administrations later, the war went on. Trump talked about a withdrawal – sort of. We didn’t leave. Desultory ‘peace’ talks between the Taliban and the debile Kabul government (complicated by the intrusion of ISIS fighters) meandered. So, were back to Richard Holbrooke’s definition of success: “We’ll know it when we see it.” For the Pentagon, ‘success’ was primarily a matter of ensuring that history doesn’t place an ‘L’ in the U.S. military’s record book. In the last weeks of his first administration, Trump conceded defeat. The chaotic withdrawal, totally mismanaged by the Pentagon, took pace under Biden. He was blamed.

    Digits and statistics and equations and algorithms are the last (or first) refuge of somebody either trying to pull the wool over your eyes – or really not knowing the subject he is talking about.

    The ignominious flight from the 19-year Afghan debacle put paid to the COIN/Nation Building/Democracy Promotion phase of the post-Cold War strategy for maximizing American global influence. It had been a three-pronged project now reduced to what always had been the two main elements: coercive force, and covert operations. The ‘best-of-intentions’ cover that the former provided continued to serve as propaganda tool for cudgeling hostile states on human rights grounds. However, the ranks of the true believers were reduced to a few naïve idealists.

    Outright coercion has been employed with growing audacity: Syria, Libya, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon (where it succeeded) as well as Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen (where it failed). Covert operations are employed with the same audacity spanning the globe – producing similar mixed results: Ukraine, Honduras, Bolivia, Peru, Pakistan (successful); Venezuela, Georgia, Belarus, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Mali (where it failed). This propensity for trying to dictate the political leadership of other countries now has reached its logical extremity in the outright voiding of election results that displease Washington: Romania being the outstanding example. This last is not as incongruent as it might seem; after all, this is what 50% of Americans, a majority of the ruling party, and a slice of the federal judiciary approve of/countenance when it comes to the violent insurrection of January 6.

    7. The JCPOA Deal With Iran. Within hours of signing the historic, laboriously constructed agreement, President Obama said:

    With respect to Iran, it is a great civilization, but it also has an authoritarian theocracy in charge that is anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, sponsors terrorism, and there are a whole host of real profound differences that we [have with them].

    Later:

    Questions have been raised about whether we have sufficient options for dealing with Iranian violations of the deal. In fact, we have a wide range of unilateral and multilateral responses that we can employ should Iran fail to meet its commitments. First and foremost, as you are aware, the snap back provision we secured in the UN Security Council is unprecedented. If at any time the United States believes Iran has failed to meet its commitments, no other state can block our ability to snap back those multilateral sanctions. Second, we and our European partners can snap our own sanctions back into place at any time should Iran fail to meet its commitments. This gives us, as well as our European partners, enormous leverage in holding Iran to its commitments under the JCPOA. Third, we also enjoy a range of other, more incremental options. These include re-imposing certain US. sanctions, and working with our European partners to do the same, as we have done in the past. Fourth, we can employ our leverage in the mechanisms agreed to with our negotiating partners, such as through the Joint Commission’s role in the procurement channel established in the JCPOA this is a mechanism Iran must use under the deal for the procurement of any materials designed for a peaceful nuclear program and in which we have the ability to block approval. Ultimately, it is essential that we retain the flexibility to decide what responsive measures we and our allies deem appropriate for any non-compliance. Telegraphing in advance to Iran the expected any potential infractions would be counterproductive, potentially lessening the deterrent effect.

    — Letter to Representative Nadler

    Obama was echoed by Secretary of State John Kerry:

    Through these steps and others, we will maintain international pressure on Iran. United States sanctions imposed because of Tehran’s support for terrorism and its human rights record – those will remain in place, as will our sanctions aimed at preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles and transfer of conventional arms. The UN Security Council prohibitions on shipping weapons to Hizballah, the Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthi rebels in Yemen – all of those will remain as well….

    Have no doubt. The United States will oppose Iran’s destabilizing policies with every national security tool available. And disregard the myth. The Iran agreement is based on proof, not trust. And in a letter that I am sending to all the members of Congress today, I make clear the Administration’s willingness to work with them on legislation to address shared concerns about regional security consistent with the agreement that we have worked out with our international partners.

    Reply: “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, [said] Washington sought Iran’s “surrender”. “The [arrogant] Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” Khamenei said. “They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa (religious ruling), declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden under Islamic law. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

    Neither Obama nor Trump complied with the JCPOA’s provisions calling for the lifting of economic sanctions including release of Iranian financial assets frozen in American banks. Iran did comply with its treaty commitments vis the IAEA (which predictably passed on the information to American Intelligence and military planners — a practice that continued to last week). This pattern is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s reneging on the deal with North Korea in the 1990s.

    This depiction of Iran has had two profound effects. First, it closed off the possibility of pursuing a wider détente with Iran that could permit diplomatic resolution of outstanding regional conflicts. Second, this characterization was grist for the mill for all those opposed to any normalization of relations between Washington and Tehran. Thereby, it created political circumstances that encouraged Trump’s withdrawal from the treaty and then led President Biden to take a hardline approach to a restoration of our participation. By insisting on the same, unacceptable preconditions that his predecessor demanded, Biden in effect followed the course laid down by Trump – as enabled by Obama.

    Now we suffer the inevitable denouement.

    Why Memory?

    Each of these episodes in collective forgetfulness has its singular features, as do the lessons to be drawn from them. If we were to indulge ourselves in generalization, they could be summarized this way:

    1. The erasure or blurring of past events is common and easily accomplished.
    2. Doing so often is a matter of political convenience.
    3. The lessons we draw from them are normally self-serving, selective and partial.
    4. Retrieving with accuracy memories of those past events is technically quite simple; psychologically, it takes great willpower
    The failure of collective memory can exact a very heavy penalty.

    The post I Remember It, Well…. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Iran, Zionism, and the Limits of US Control: An Interview with Faramarz Farbod

    The post Iran, Zionism, and the Limits of US Control: An Interview with Faramarz Farbod first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Journalists for Human Rights (JHR) use World Refugee Day to reflect on journalists forced into exile

    Journalists for Human Rights blog post

    On June 20 we marked World Refugee Day by honouring the courage, resilience and humanity of those forced to flee their homes in search of safety.

    Many of those fleeing conflict and persecution are journalists themselves. Forced into exile, they risk losing not only their homes but their platforms and their purpose. JHR equips these journalists with training and story grants, so they can keep working even in the most challenging circumstances.

    In Canada, Soraya Amiri arrived from Afghanistan in 2022. She began her career here through the JHR-Meta Afghan Journalists in Residence Fellowship at The Walrus. Today, she continues as a Contributing Writer. In this essay, she reflects on what it means to reclaim her voice as a journalist in exile. Read her latest stories here. Mostafa Al-A’sar, another fellow originally from Egypt who resettled in Canada in 2024, joined the Contributing Writers Program in May and is already at work on his first article for The Walrus. Through their stories, Canadians gain a deeper understanding of the lives and events unfolding beyond our borders.

    In Europe we fund and train exiled Russian and Belarusian journalists now based in the Baltics and Poland. With our support they continue reporting on shrinking civic space and government repression. Brestskaya Gazeta has documented the lives of former political prisoners, making visible the human toll of repression. Two young Belarusian bloggers used their platforms to counter state propaganda and foster dialogue on democratic values. And SOTA Vision reads letters to political prisoners on livestreams, helping ensure that those imprisoned in Russia are not forgotten.

    In Turkey, where millions of Syrians settled after fleeing the now-toppled Assad regime, JHR-trained journalists have helped ensure that language barriers don’t stop refugees from accessing education, that legal aid is available to refugee women and that travel permits helped legally restricted refugees move freely to safer regions after the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake.

    At a moment of global upheaval, when self-interest drowns out solidarity, when aid budgets are slashed and the number of displaced people worldwide has never been higher, it is more urgent than ever to stand with refugees.

    At JHR, we remain committed to supporting journalists in exile and to equipping local reporters with the tools they need to cover refugee rights objectively and accurately.

    WORLD REFUGEE DAY: Ensuring journalists in exile don’t go silent

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Trump’s New “Muslim Ban” Wipes Out Hope for 250,000 Afghans Seeking Refuge in US

    During Donald Trump’s first term, the Afghan American community dodged a bullet. This time, we weren’t so lucky. The new “Muslim ban 2.0,” the successor to Trump’s original Muslim ban, went into effect today, with 12 countries on its list, including Afghanistan. When President Trump began his second term in office on January 20, he issued an executive order asking for a 60-day review of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • NGOs address Pakistan on Afghan journalists and Baloch human rights defenders

    On 29 May the Committee to Protect Journalists and fourteen other organisations have urged Pakistan to immediately halt deportation of Afghan journalists and other vulnerable Afghan migrants. The fifteen advocacy groups expressed deep concern over Pakistan’s ongoing deportation plan, first announced on 3 October 2023, which targets undocumented Afghan nationals. The joint statement highlights the heightened risks faced by Afghan journalists, writers, artists, human rights defenders, and others who fled Taliban persecution and are now at risk of being forcibly returned.

    Among the signatories are prominent international organisations such as PEN Germany, CPJ, Unlimited Free Press, Front Line Defenders, International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN), Nai – Supporting Open Media in Afghanistan, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

    The organisations also called on the international community to provide safe resettlement opportunities for these individuals, recognising the dangers they face if returned to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Pakistan’s deportation policy has faced sharp criticism from local and international bodies, including the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). These entities have urged Pakistan to uphold its international obligations and provide protection to those fleeing conflict and persecution.

    Despite repeated calls for restraint, the Pakistani government has accelerated forced returns in recent months. In April alone, more than 300,000 Afghans were deported, drawing further condemnation from human rights organisations.

    ——

    On 28 May Amnesty International along with four other human rights organizations wrote to the Pakistani prime minister, calling for an end to the “harassment and arbitrary detention” of Baloch human rights defenders (HRDs) exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, particularly in Balochistan province. 

    The letter comes in the wake of Dr. Mahrang Baloch, one of the leading campaigners for the Baloch minority and the leader of the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), and a number of other activists, being arrested in March on charges of terrorism, sedition and murder. ..

    The five organizations — Amnesty International, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Front Line Defenders, International Federation for Human Rights, World Organization Against Torture — appeal to Pakistan’s Prime Minister to release Baloch human rights defenders and end the crackdown on dissent in line with Pakistan’s international human rights obligations;

    A dozen UN experts called on Pakistan in March to immediately release Baloch rights defenders, including Dr. Baloch, and to end the repression of their peaceful protests. UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders Mary Lawlor said she was “disturbed by reports of further mistreatment in prison.”

    Balochistan is the site of a long-running separatist movement, with insurgent groups accusing the state of unfairly exploiting Balochistan’s rich gas and mineral resources. The federal and provincial governments deny this, saying they are spending billions of rupees on the uplift of the province’s people. 

    see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/10/22/prominent-baluch-human-rights-defender-stopped-from-attending-time-event-in-us-and-then-assaulted/

    https://www.afintl.com/en/202505291879

    https://www.arabnews.com/node/2602563/amp

  • The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal

    The agreement between Washington and Kyiv to create an investment fund to search for rare earth minerals has been seen as something of a turn by the Trump administration.  From hectoring and mocking the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky before the cameras on his visit to the US capital two months ago, President Donald Trump had apparently softened.  It was easy to forget that the minerals deal was already on the negotiating table and would have been reached but for Zelensky’s fateful and ill-tempered ambush.  Dreams of accessing Ukrainian reserves of such elements as graphite, titanium and lithium were never going to dissipate.

    Details remain somewhat sketchy, but the agreement supposedly sets out a sharing of revenues in a manner satisfactory to the parties while floating, if only tentatively, the prospect of renewed military assistance.  That assistance, however, would count as US investment in the fund.  According to the White House, the US Treasury Department and US International Development Finance Corporation will work with Kyiv “to finalize governance and advance this important partnership”, one that ensures the US “an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.”

    In its current form, the agreement supposedly leaves it to Ukraine to determine what to extract in terms of the minerals and where this extraction is to take place.  A statement from the US Treasury Department also declared that, “No state or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

    Ukraine’s Minister of Economy, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the subsoil remained within the domain of Kyiv’s ownership, while the fund would be “structured” on an equal basis “jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States” and financed by “new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil and gas – generated after the Fund is created”.  Neither party would “hold a dominant vote – a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.”

    The minister also revealed that privatisation processes and managing state-owned companies would not be altered by the arrangements.  “Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.”  There would also be no question of debt obligations owed by Kyiv to Washington.

    That this remains a “joint” venture is always bound to raise some suspicions, and nothing can conceal the predatory nature of an arrangement that permits US corporations and firms access to the critical resources of another country.  For his part, Trump fantasised in a phone call to a town hall on the NewsNation network that the latest venture would yield “much more in theory than the $350 billion” worth of aid he insists the Biden administration furnished Kyiv with.

    Svyrydenko chose to see the Reconstruction Investment Fund as one that would “attract global investment into our country” while still maintaining Ukrainian autonomy.  Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House of Foreign Affairs Committee, thought otherwise, calling it “Donald Trump’s extortion of Ukraine deal”.  Instead of focusing on the large, rather belligerent fly in the ointment – Russian President Vladimir Putin – the US president had “demonstrated nothing but weakness” towards Moscow.

    The war mongering wing of the Democrats were also in full throated voice.  To make such arrangements in the absence of assured military support to Kyiv made the measure vacuous.  “Right now,” Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said on MSNBC television, “all indications are that Donald Trump’s policy is to hand Ukraine to Vladimir Putin, and in that case, this agreement isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on.”

    On a certain level, Murphy has a point.  Trump’s firmness in holding to the bargain is often capricious.  In September 2017, he reached an agreement with the then Afghan president Ashraf Ghani to permit US companies to develop Afghanistan’s rare earth minerals.  Having spent 16 years in Afghanistan up to that point, ways of recouping some of the costs of Washington’s involvement were being considered.  It was agreed, went a White House statement sounding all too familiar, “that such initiatives would help American companies develop minerals critical to national security while growing Afghanistan’s economy and creating new jobs in both countries, therefore defraying some of the costs of United States assistance as Afghans become more reliant.”

    Ghani’s precarious puppet regime was ultimately sidelined in favour of direct negotiations with the Taliban that eventually culminated in their return to power, leaving the way open for US withdrawal and a termination of any grand plans for mineral extraction.

    A coterie of foreign policy analysts abounded with glowing statements at this supposedly impressive feat of Ukrainian diplomacy.  Shelby Magid, deputy director of the Atlantic Council think tank’s Eurasia Centre, thought it put Kyiv “in their strongest position yet with Washington since Trump took office”.  Ukraine had withstood “tremendous pressure” to accept poorer proposals, showing “that it is not just a junior partner that has to roll over and accept a bad deal”.

    Time and logistics remain significant obstacles to the realisation of the agreement.  As Ukraine’s former minister of economic development and current head of Kyiv school of economics Tymofiy Mylovanov told the BBC, “These resources aren’t in a port or warehouse; they must be developed.”  Svyrydenko had to also ruefully concede that vast resources of mineral deposits existed in territory occupied by Russian forces.  There are also issues with unexploded mines.  Any challenge to the global rare earth elements (REEs) market, currently dominated by China (60% share of production of raw materials; 85% share of global processing output; and 90% manufacturing share of rare earth magnets), will be long in coming.

    The post The US-Ukraine Minerals Deal first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Trump Axes Temporary Protected Status for Afghan and Cameroonian Immigrants

    The Trump administration announced on Friday that it was revoking the Temporary Protected Status — or TPS — for thousands of immigrants from Cameroon and Afghanistan who are currently living and working in the United States. The move, the latest attempt by the administration to roll back protections for migrants in the U.S. who cannot safely return to their home countries due to conflict or…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Afghan rights defender told she faces ‘no risk’ from Taliban as Home Office denies asylum

    Woman who worked with western governments in her home country before fleeing the Taliban told to return

    An Afghan woman who risked her life to defend human rights in her home country before fleeing to the UK has been told by the Home Office it is safe for her to return after officials rejected her asylum claim.

    Mina (not her real name) worked for western government-backed projects and was involved in training and mentoring women across Afghanistan, which left her in grave danger even before the Taliban took over in 2021.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘I begged them, my daughter was dying’: how Taliban male escort rules are killing mothers and babies

    The need for women to be accompanied by a man in public is blocking access to healthcare and contributing to soaring mortality rates, say experts

    It was the middle of the night when Zarin Gul realised that her daughter Nasrin had to get to the hospital as soon as possible. Her daughter’s husband was away working in Iran and the two women were alone with Nasrin’s seven children when Nasrin, heavily pregnant with her eighth child, began experiencing severe pains.

    Gul helped Nasrin into a rickshaw and they set off into the night. Holding her daughter’s hand as the rickshaw jolted over the dirt road, Gul says she prayed they would not encounter a Taliban checkpoint.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Judges Weigh Appeal By Whistleblower Who Exposed Cover-Up Of War Crimes

    A three-judge panel in the Australian capital is weighing an appeal by whistleblower David McBride that could determine if a soldier’s duty is to serve the public or only his superior officers even if it means covering up evidence of his nation’s war crimes.

    The judges are also considering the question of whether Australian soldiers owe their allegiance to the British crown or to the people of Australia.

    The three Court of Appeal judges have been deliberating for four weeks to determine if the trial judge erred in not permitting McBride a public interest defense.

    The post Judges Weigh Appeal By Whistleblower Who Exposed Cover-Up Of War Crimes appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Afghan refugees in Pakistan are being deported to Afghanistan where they are at risk of persecution


    This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • On Stupidity

    Stupidity, stupidity everywhere – and not a word to witness.

    “Stupid” is a commonplace term casually used in everyday conversation. Much less so in writing – especially when the subject is political personalities. It is heavily weighted with inhibition. Why this hesitation? Why at a time when manifest stupidity in speech and action is rampant?

    “Stupid” is both blunt and conclusive. Straight-forward. It does not welcome qualification or discussion. It implies: matter settled, closed. Moreover, it suggests a character flaw as well as low intelligence. That somehow makes us uncomfortable. So we prefer: dense, slow, thick, dim or dim-witted; or pithy euphemisms, e.g. “not the sharpest tool in the kit” or “none too swift” or “slow on the uptake” or “not playing with a full deck” or “in so far over his head that the bubbles don’t reach the surface.” In addition, there are those words that refer directly to intelligence: moron, imbecile, idiot. They, too, are in currency but suffer from the disability of taking in vain a descriptive word that refers to the poor souls who are born with mental deficiencies.

    “Stupid” is used as an epithet 95% of the time. Not as a depiction of someone’s Intelligence Quotient (IQ). To do so in the latter sense is to complicate matters. Intelligence, as we now are aware, is a broad concept that covers 5 or 6 or 7 mental attributes whose correlations are quite low. So, almost no one thinks that through before throwing the word around. To the degree that one might consider meanings, it implies lack of logic – the core characteristic of conventional IQ intelligence.

    Squirt kerosene on a simmering barbecue – that’s stupid. Sending more troops to Afghanistan in 2017 when you’ve failed miserably to achieve your (undefined) objective over the past 15 years with much larger contingents is stupid, i.e., illogical. Denouncing China as America’s enemy on whom it plans to impose severe economic sanctions while senior officials publicly predict war within 10 years, and then beseeching Beijing for assistance in keeping the dollar the global currency by ending its sale of U.S. securities; and then demanding that China slow its economic growth because 1) it causes balance-of-trade imbalances, and 2) that would reduce its oil imports thereby minimizing Russian revenue from its sales on a softer world market (as did Janet Yellin on two separate visits) – that’s stupid. Silently letting Turkey provide crucial material support to ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria while decrying terrorist acts by jihadis in the US and Europe is stupid, i.e., illogical. (The Obama administration soon joined in supplying arms indirectly those same groups, then helped secure their control of the Idlib enclave which was their base for the eventual breakout a few months ago; now in power they are massacring Alawites and Christians). Bestowing praise and honors on the Saudi leaders as declared brothers in the “war on terror” when in fact these very persons have done more to propagate the fanatical creed that inspires and justifies acts of terror is stupid, i.e., “illogical.”

    These instances of stupid behavior draw our attention to the connections between intelligence and knowledge – between “stupidity” and “ignorance.” Stupid (illogical) behavior is more likely when you don’t know what you’re doing because important information is missing. In the examples cited, though, the information that is the foundation for logical thinking was known to the parties taking those actions. Not just accessible – it is lodged (somewhere) in the brain of the actor. “Dumb”1 in popular usage is the word that combines “stupid” and “ignorant” – with the connotation that the ignorance is willful. That is a pertinent notion to which we’ll return.

    Assuming that the “stupid’ actors are not mentally deficient, why do they act as if they are? That is the persistent question that crops us as we see and read the antics of public officials, commentators, and a host of celebrity personalities. Several explanations, not excuses, come to mind.

    One is that there exists an implicit logic that is not acknowledged but salient for the person(s) involved. The Pentagon brass may well have been less concerned about “winning” in Afghanistan, whatever that means, than they were living with the intolerable perception that they “lost.” No general cum security policy-maker wants to be saddled with the label of “loser.” That sensitivity can become institutionally generalized; Generals Mattis and McMaster were in little danger of being blamed personally for failure in Afghanistan. What seems to count is that they did not want the U.S. military to be stigmatized as a failure. They were acutely aware of how much the image of the uniformed military suffered as a result of America losing its first war in Vietnam. It follows that they might hope against hope that the outcome can be fudged enough so as to escape that fate. There is a practical side to this concern, too. Failure, as perceived in the public eye, could tarnish the resplendent image so successfully cultivated during the “war on terror” era. That could translate into less support for bigger budgets, less lucrative consultancies after retirement, and less acclaim. And a weaker voice in policy debates.

    If one were to postulate that these are cardinal objectives, then campaigning to send several thousand more troops on a strategically pointless mission is logical – and the plan’s promoters not as stupid as they appear. What of senior policymakers in and around the White House who did not share those particular interests? They, indeed, were stupid.

    Another instructive example is Barack Obama’s announcing the conclusion of an historic, arduously negotiated nuclear treaty with Iran (JPOA) in a speech that vilifies the Tehran regime as a tyranny that sponsors terrorism, aims to dominate the Persian Gulf, and endangers Israel. Thereby, he emboldened opponents of the accord to attack it – clearing the way for its abrogation by Trump a few years later. The net result: we now are on the brink of war with Iran because of its nuclear activities. Stupidly illogical? Perhaps not. Obama, on narrow political grounds, was trying to insulate himself from a barrage of criticism from Washington hard-liners and the Zionist lobby. Only two years earlier, he had infuriated them by scotching plans for American military strikes against government forces in response to chemical attacks blamed on the Assad regime (in fact, a false flag operation by MI-6 and their White Hats in collaboration with the jihadi rebels); hence, the perceived need to mollify them. So, it can be seen as logical given his weighting of interests and priorities. Not stupid – just self-centered and unresponsive to the public good, vintage Obama.

    A second reality to keep in mind is that governments are plural nouns – or, pronouns with multiple antecedent nouns. The numerous organizations, bureaucracies and individuals involved in decision-making typically lead to a convoluted process wherein it is easy to lose track of purposes, priorities and coordination. Where little discipline is imposed by the chief, the greater the chances that the result will be contradictory, disjointed, sub-optimal and often poorly executed policies. At the present moment, we are witnessing a disjointed Trump administration, that in regard to Ukraine/Russia, 6 individuals are pursuing 7 different lines as indicated by their public remarks – an octopus trying to put on a pair of mismatched socks. All exacerbated by a scatterbrained Chief Executive who contradicts himself – as well his senior deputies – on a nightly basis.

    Another kind of impediment to coherent, reality-based policymaking arises when the opposite condition prevails: an elaborate process involving several parties with divergent perspectives and parochial interests concludes with an agreement on a lowest common denominator basis. Arduously reached, that decision becomes frozen, insulated from new information or changes in the environment due to the fear that any revision would unravel the consensus – a form of groupthink. An extreme example of this phenomenon is provided by the EU where 27 sovereign states must agree before any policy can be enunciated. In Brussels, success is proclaimed when they reach accord as if negotiating among themselves is tantamount to negotiating an accord with other governments. A similar example is presented by the current campaign of the Trump administration to press Ukraine into negotiations with Russia. The tussle between Washington and Kiev is taken to be the crucial step toward resolution of the conflict. In fact, the ideas being bandied about as key ingredients of a settlement already have been absolutely rejected by Moscow – in particular, the much ballyhooed ceasefire that is a Western pipedream. As yet, they have not even been formally conveyed to the Russians. Stupid – or pathological?

    Finally, we should recognize that rigorous thinking is far from the norm – at the highest levels of government as well as in everyday life. It takes a combination of education/training, experience, intellectual integrity, a cultivated sense of responsibility, discomfort with deciding on the basis of skimpy or suspect information, and an ingrained preference for knowing why you’re doing something instead of flying by the seat of your pants. True, when practiced and reinforced, rigorous thinking can become habitual – just like other modes of human behavior. There are multiple influences, though, that militate against that habit taking root and being sustained. They include the lure of celebrity, time pressures due to an excess of travel and/or summonses to mind-numbing TV interviews, long-tedious-inconclusive meetings (such as those presided over by Susan Rice which drove Chuck Hagel out of government), endless bureaucratic games-playing, distracted Chief Executives who demand ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to complex issues. Altogether, the tumult can soften the toughest mind. Weaker minds simply latch onto whatever conventional wisdom and catch phrases are floating around in order to remain relevant and minimally functional in the kaleidoscopic setting of most administrations.

    All of these patterns with attendant adverse consequences are more likely to crystallize into stupid acts when the man nominally in charge lacks the intelligence, emotional stability, self-awareness and/or advisors to recognize either the requirements for sound policymaking or for implementation. A lack of capacity to accept responsibility and to be held accountable exacerbates matters.

    A business career such as Trump’s is not the desired preparation. Not only is that world fundamentally different from the world of public affairs (and especially foreign policy) Further, Trump partially compensated for his flaws through coercion, cheating, and duplicity. And at the end of the day, he could rig the books. That modus operandi doesn’t fly in the Middle East or in dealing with the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xia Jinping. It could, and does, win elections in a country where ignorance and “obtuseness”, in its many inglorious forms, are commonplace.

    “Willful ignorance,” or “studied ignorance,” is an increasingly familiar phenomenon. Not just in Washington but among heads of large organizations of all stripes (e.g. universities). The inclination to avoid acquiring knowledge about a matter either at hand or looming is not necessarily a sign of stupidity. Here, too, there may be hidden considerations at play. American foreign policymakers may have wish to mask the Kabul government’s faltering popular support because doing so means a fundamental rethink of aims- an agonizing reappraisal for which they are unprepared intellectually, politically, and diplomatically. (MB: substitute Ukraine)

    Making no effort to uncover the facts only becomes “stupid” where the responsible official then does things, as a consequence, that harm his interests. That has been the case in Syria where Barack Obama refused to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that the “rebels” were overwhelmingly Salafist jihadis. In this case, an admission of that cardinal truth would pose the stark choice between continuing to back an al-Qaeda2-led cause or reversing course in tilting toward the Assad regime. The President lacked the courage to deal with the wide-ranging ramifications of that; so, he deluded himself into pursuing a will-o’wisp that existed only in the imaginings of those who were keen on an American military intervention. By surrounding himself with a rogue Secretary of Defense, a strategically disoriented Secretary of State, a self-absorbed, unpracticed National Security Advisor, and an obstreperous UN Ambassador, Obama fostered an environment that enabled his escapist behavior. So, too, did his ritual deference to the warped liturgy of the foreign policy Establishment that they represented.

    For a President to avoid acting “stupidly,” he need not have an exceptional IQ – or score remarkably high on other dimensions of intelligence. Two things are most important: he must be honest with himself; and he must put in place a policy system that is both logical in process and self-aware as to why decisions are taken with what end in mind. To borrow an analogy from the football terminology favored in the corridors of Washington power: you can win a championship with a simply competent quarterback if the other pieces are in place and he follows a disciplined script. (Bart Starr of the old Green Bay Packers). An emotionally handicapped or narcissistic quarterback – however talented – will cripple a team sooner or later. One who suffers from the latter condition(s), along with a lack of athletic talent, is a guarantor of disaster. “Stupidity” will be the least of the derogatory terms applied to the ensuing performance; that word should be reserved for those who chose him.

    Moral: we should not hesitate to call things as they are. Feigned politeness in situations marked by systematic deceit, ill-will and harm to the nation serves no good purpose. Concerned about the proverbial “dignity of the office?” Take your shoes off before entering the Oval Office. If “stupidity” displayed by stupid people is what we observe, virtue lies in calling it by its name.

    The foregoing discussion pertains directly to government leaders. What of those non-official members of the “foreign affairs community” – the think tank pundits, the media personalities, the op ed columnists? These days, the thinking of most mirrors that of those in government positions. The unstated or unconfirmed premises, the partial or selective information, the logical flaws. The main differences are that they write/speak at far greater length, compose longer sentences, and use polysyllabic words. The level of intellectual rigor, though, is pretty much the same.

    ENDNOTES:

    The post On Stupidity first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    “Dumb” as a pejorative has been out of favor for some time. It sounds stale to the post-modern ear. Only be adding the suffix “SOB” or “bastard” does it make any impact. That may be changing, though. The comeback of “dumb” could well have something to do with the fact that it rhymes with “Trump.” The German spelling “Drump” has even truer resonance.
    2    Abu Mohammad al-Julani, nom de guerre of Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, and Abu Bakra al-Baghdadi of ISIS notoriety were confederates in the al-Qaeda subsidiary al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia that had been active in Iraq after the 2003 American invasion and occupation. Soon after the civil war in Syria broke out in 2011, they went their more or less separate ways: al-Baghdadi leading the Islamic State and Julani controlling al-Nusra as it came to be known. Over time, al-Nusra became the dominant force in the opposition coalition. It used its non-jihadi allies as convenient cover. American aid, along with that of European supporters, was laundered through those other groups. In effect, they served as a postal drop box. Over the eight years when al-Nusra ran the Idlib pocket under Turkish protection, they set up a repressive Islamic autocracy. They also assembled a multiethnic force including ISIS remnants, Uigurs, Uzbeks, Afghans, Chechens that acted as Turkish mercenaries in Libya, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Now, they enjoy a measure of independence as militias in the new-found regime of Jalani’s Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – its latest organizational incarnation. However, they could not commit the massacres against the Alawites without Jolani’s tacit approval, and HTS security forces, too, were involved.

    For the record: among Syria’s 4.5 million Alawites, few supported Assad to the end and active opposition to the HTS takeover was very limited.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Michael Brenner.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Afghanistan: What the Taliban Does To Women In Prison | RFE/RL Exclusive


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and was authored by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Sovereignty

    With Trump’s recent tongue-lashing of Zelensky at their meeting in Washington DC, social media is now flooded with anguished cries about Ukraine’s sovereignty and how the U.S. must stand up to Russia’s empire-building invasion. The “consensus” claims Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty cannot be tolerated and must be punished.

    Respect for sovereignty? Are these well-intentioned but completely misguided folks incapable of remembering the not so distant past?

    Did America respect Korea’s sovereignty when it canceled free and open elections there in 1950, instigating an unnecessary, brutal war? Over 2 million Koreans were killed.

    Did America respect Vietnam’s sovereignty when it decided Vietnam could not have a Communist government there and slaughtered 3 million people? Vietnam is communist now. I’ve lived there. It does just fine.

    Did America respect Serbia’s sovereignty when it bombed Belgrade for 79 days and finally carved out Kosovo so it could build what was for years the largest NATO base in Eastern Europe?

    Did America respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty when it refused to work with the Taliban when they offered to hand over Osama bin Laden, but chose instead to invade and launch a 22-year war? We killed tens of thousands of Afghanis, lost the war. The Taliban is still in power.

    Did America respect Iraq’s sovereignty when it lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded, killing, and displacing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens?

    Did America respect Libya’s sovereignty when it and its NATO puppets destroyed the richest country in Africa and killed its revered leader, Muammar Gaddafi? Libya is a broken country now with a dysfunctional economy and open slave markets.

    Did America respect Syria’s sovereignty when it funded terrorists to topple the government of Assad and eventually built bases in the country to choke off the food supply of the Syrian people and “steal their oil”?

    Did America itself respect Ukraine’s sovereignty when it engineered the Maidan coup in 2014, toppled the democratically elected president, and installed a US puppet regime in power?

    I could go on. But I’ll mention one last one, keeping in mind the Russiagate hoax where Russia was falsely accused of meddling in US elections …

    Did America respect RUSSIA’S SOVEREIGNTY when it funded the re-election campaign of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, because we knew he would do our bidding?

    Sovereignty, eh? If any of our leaders can even spell ‘sovereignty’, they sure as hell have no idea what it means.

    The post Sovereignty first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Revealed: Google facilitated Russia and China’s censorship requests

    An investigation has exposed the tech firm’s cooperation with autocratic regimes to remove unfavourable content

    Google has cooperated with autocratic regimes around the world, including the Kremlin in Russia and the Chinese Communist party, to facilitate censorship requests, an Observer investigation can reveal.

    The technology company has engaged with the administrations of about 150 countries since 2011 that want information scrubbed from their public domains.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Taliban ban domestic political and economic broadcasts in Afghanistan

    New York, February 14, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on the Taliban to reverse Thursday’s ban on the broadcast of political and economic programs by domestic Afghan outlets.

    The Ministry of Information and Culture issued a verbal directive to media executives in the capital Kabul on February 13, stating that organizations may only address political and economic issues through the group’s spokespersons, two local journalists told CPJ on condition of anonymity, citing fear of reprisal.

    “The Taliban must allow Afghan media to operate independently,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “This latest move to censor discussion, reporting, and debate of political and economic issues is yet another repressive measure that indicates the extreme measures the Taliban are taking to totally dismantle Afghanistan’s independent media.”

    In September, the Taliban banned live political shows and ordered journalists to obtain their approval before broadcasting pre-recorded shows, featuring pre-approved topics and participants. Journalists wishing to interview an expert outside of the Taliban’s list of 68 approved speakers had to seek the information ministry’s permission.

    CPJ’s text messages requesting comment from Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid did not receive a response.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Donald Trump under fire over the ‘disastrous implications’ of his latest move

    Action for Global Health – a diverse, influential network convening more than 50 organisations including WaterAid, Plan International and Age International – has released an ‘emergency statement’ regarding recent US government Executive Orders by Donald Trump and their ‘disastrous implications’ for global health.

    Donald Trump and his Executive Orders will have a devastating impact globally

    The statement outlines the devastating impact of the withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), the freeze on USAID spending, and the implementation of the Global Gag Rule. These developments all have the same outcome – lifelong, generational impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. 

    This impact is already being felt across the globe. From halting efforts to battle a deadly Marburg outbreak in Tanzania, to cutting off maternal care in Afghanistan, these decisions are undoing years of progress on global health equality, inflicting severe harm on people’s health and thrusting the world deeper into polycrisis. 

    Action for Global Health’s combined expertise and global reach mean they are witnessing these impacts first-hand. They call on the UK Labour Party government to “map out an emergency strategy and response, leveraging their influence, diplomatic channels, funding, programmes, convening power and strategies, to ensure services are protected for those who need them”.

    Other key implications include:

    • Halting critical malaria prevention campaigns just before peak transmission season. In Kenya, this will mean 1.45 million people left unprotected. In Uganda, this will mean 3.2 million people at risk. In Ethiopia, 2.6 million people won’t receive bed nets. 
    • Severely impairing the WHO’s ability to detect and respond to disease outbreaks, leaving the world more vulnerable to future pandemics.
    • Threatening to disrupt entire sexual and reproductive health programmes and health systems that will undo years of progress in global health equity and the rights of women and girls. 

    Katie Husselby, director of Action for Global Health, said:

    In light of the US Government’s recent announcements, the threat to global health progress hangs in the balance. It is vital that the UK Government, in conjunction with global health civil society, outlines its response to these developments and mitigates their impact on those most affected – before it’s too late.

    ‘Deeply concerned’

    Beth Schlachter, MSI’s senior director for US External Affairs, said

    As one of the largest providers of life-saving contraception and abortion, MSI is deeply concerned about the impact that Trump’s wholesale assault will have on global reproductive health.

    While the U.S. government has never funded abortion, it has supported international family planning and reproductive health efforts for 50 years and is by far the largest family planning donor worldwide, supplying 43% of funding in 2023

    But the Trump administration has left us in no doubt that they want to decimate not only abortion care, but also the provision of contraception more broadly.

    We are calling on everyone who believes in human rights and the far-reaching influence of this work to remain steadfast in your solidarity, remember why we do what we do and be ready to fight for all we believe in.

    In the white heat of the chaos, it’s never been more important to stay focused on our mission and the job ahead. Together, we will continue to serve the people counting on us to find a way forward.

    The UK must intervene over Trump’s plans

    Elaine Green, Author of the Action for Global Health Stocktake Review, said:

    President’s Trump’s decision to suspend all foreign aid and withdraw from the WHO is a devastating blow for global health.

    These decisions are already disrupting services for millions of the most vulnerable people around the world – women and adolescent girls are seeing access to sexual and reproductive health services rapidly eroding, vaccines and prevention campaigns to protect children from deadly diseases such as measles and malaria are being stopped, and the supply of medical products and essential medicines to treat diseases such as HIV, neglected tropical diseases, and non-communicable diseases are being severely disrupted. 

    The UK needs to urgently demonstrate what it can do to bridge the chasm of global health inequity that President Trump’s Executive Orders have opened up. We know the UK cannot do this all on its own, but it can lead the way in showing the urgency or investing in global health to protect and care for the most vulnerable populations around the world.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Betrayed by US Again, Afghan Evacuees Stranded After Refugee Program Suspension

    Back in 2020, President Donald Trump inked a deal with the Taliban for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The deal was noteworthy for a variety of reasons, among them Trump’s bypassing of the U.S.-backed Afghan government at the time. Many critics — including top U.S. military brass — would later say the deal set conditions for a botched U.S. withdrawal in 2021 and the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • CPJ calls on Pakistani authorities to end harassment, deportation of Afghan journalists

    New York, January 22, 2025—Pakistani authorities must stop deporting and harassing Afghan journalists who have fled Afghanistan because of threats to their lives, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday.

    During the first week of January 2025, Pakistani security forces detained two Afghan journalists and their families before deporting them to Afghanistan, according to a letter the independent watchdog group, the Pak-Afghan International Forum of Journalists, sent to CPJ on January 16. The letter did not disclose the names of the deported journalists, who are members of the forum.

    Separately, Afghan journalists Mujeeb Awrang and Ahmad Mosaviconfirmed to CPJ that on January 3 Pakistani authorities detained them at their homes in the capital, Islamabad, and held them in a vehicle for three hours, despite having presented valid Pakistani visas and Afghan passports. The journalists said they were threatened with imprisonment and deportation before being released without explanation.

    “Pakistan’s security agencies must immediately halt the harassment and deportation of Afghan journalists,” said Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “These journalists fled Afghanistan due to the Taliban’s threats to their lives. The Pakistani government must protect them, not mistreat them.”

    The Pakistani government has instructed Afghan nationals, including journalists, to relocate from Islamabad and the nearby city of Rawalpindi to other cities by January 15, according to a report by the London-based independent media outlet Afghanistan International and a Pakistani journalist, who spoke to CPJ anonymously for fear of reprisal.

    Afghan journalists continue to face imprisonment and persecution by the Taliban, with Afghan News Agency reporter Mahdi Ansary, sentenced on January 1 to 18 months in prison on charges of disseminating anti-Taliban propaganda.

    CPJ did not receive a response to its text asking for comment from Pakistan’s federal information minister, Attaullah Tarar. 


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Taliban made me marry my boss: how one word led to a forced marriage

    Afghanistan’s ‘morality police’ arrested Samira at work in Kabul – and then made the 19-year-old marry her employer

    It was a normal summer morning in July last year when 19-year-old Samira* made her way to the carpet-weaving shop where she worked in Kabul to pick up her wages. She had no way of knowing that in just a few hours, her life as she knew it would be over.

    She would end the day in a Taliban police station, a victim of forced marriage with her entire future decided for her by a group of strangers with guns.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Malala Yousafzai urges Muslim leaders not to support Taliban ‘gender apartheid’ – video

    Speaking at an inaugural conference on girls’ education in the Muslim world, Malala Yousafzai decried the state of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan as ‘gender apartheid’. The conference in Islamabad brought together local and international advocates and dignitaries committed to advancing girls’ education. Representatives from Afghanistan, where girls’ education remains banned under Taliban rule, were notably absent

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Does Britain execute children abroad? Damning new evidence suggests it does.

    The ongoing controversy over RAF Akrotiri‘s participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza is not the only scandal relating to British armed forces. Because the Afghanistan Inquiry into possible UK Special Forces (UKSF) war crimes has just revealed that SAS officers had a “golden pass allowing them to get away with murder” from 2010 to 2013.

    This is according to a former senior Special Boat Service (SBS) officer who, along with others, had raised concerns in 2011 about SAS executions and cover-ups.

    Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick faced criticism in 2024 for “casually revealing a UK extra-judicial assassination program designed to evade ECHR jurisdiction”. And there were many official denials. But the revelations from the Afghanistan Inquiry suggest that this type of behaviour may indeed be commonplace.

    The inquiry’s closed hearings do not allow attendance by members of the public, the media, or the legal teams of bereaved families.

    SAS: kill counts, child murder, impunity, and fear of WikiLeaks

    As the BBC reports:

    Senior SBS officers told the inquiry of deep concerns that the SAS, fresh from aggressive, high-tempo operations in Iraq, was being driven by kill counts – the number of dead they could achieve in each operation.

    A junior officer of the SBS, meanwhile, reported how an SAS member had spoken “about a pillow being put over the head of someone before they were killed with a pistol”. They added that “some of those killed by the SAS had been children” likely younger than 16.

    In an email, another SBS officer showed concern about what might happen if they didn’t speak out:

    When the next WikiLeaks occurs then we will be dragged down with them

    One said that “basically, there appears to be a culture there of ‘shut up, don’t question’”.

    The low level of accountability for the SAS was apparently “astonishing”.

    British support for and participation in Israel’s genocide in Gaza has been utterly damning. But the UK seems not to reserve impunity only for its allies’ crimes. Instead, it seems to be how things work with our own forces too.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Deadly US Policies in Latin America Epitomize Jimmy Carter’s Mixed Legacy

    As the remains of Jimmy Carter arrive in Washington, D.C., as part of a weeklong state funeral, we speak with historian Greg Grandin about the former U.S. president’s legacy. Carter, who served a single term from 1977 to 1981, promised to restore faith in government after the twin traumas of Watergate and the Vietnam War and to reorient U.S. foreign policy toward upholding human rights.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bypassing the ‘Taliban firewall’: How an exile newsroom reports on Afghan women

    Faisal Karimi and Wahab Siddiqi, respectively founder and editor-in-chief of the Afghanistan Women’s News Agency, were among the first journalists to flee Afghanistan after the Taliban retook control of the country in August 2021. After escaping the country undetected with nearly two dozen newsroom colleagues and family members a week after the fall of Kabul, they made their way to a refugee camp in Albania. Then, they got to work rebuilding the newsroom they had left behind.

    More than three years later, the two journalists run the agency from exile in the United States. To get out the news, they rely on the reporting of 15 female journalists hired in 10 provinces to replace the staff who fled. As the Taliban has become increasingly hostile to women journalists and the exile press, the newsroom takes extreme security precautions. Zoom meetings take place with a strict “cameras off” policy so that the women won’t be compromised if they recognize each other on the street.

    In June, CPJ interviewed Karimi and Siddiqi in Columbia, Missouri, where they were attending a safety training for journalists in exile at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism. During the interview, both men checked their phones often, explaining the importance of remaining available at all times for their reporters.

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Can you describe the atmosphere for the press immediately after the Taliban takeover?

    Karimi: When the Taliban took over, our hope collapsed overnight. We were working journalists for eight years before the takeover and we used our journalism against extremist Taliban ideology. Our work aimed to promote democratic values and human rights in our country by creating a newsroom and outlet for female journalists. Eight years of such work was evidence enough for the Taliban to attack us. 

    Siddiqi: Social norms in Afghanistan regarding women’s rights are very sensitive and this was the main reason we had to flee. When you are talking about women’s rights in Afghanistan, you are not only facing danger from the Taliban, but also from others in the country who adhere to such radical beliefs.

    I remember when we were working in Herat, our office was in a very safe location, but even our neighbors would question why so many women were entering the building. They assumed there was some ethical wrongdoing. Since our work highlighted women’s issues, we were in danger from the Taliban and the pervasive misogyny in the society at large.

    The Afghanistan Women’s News Agency is one of just a handful of women-focused outlets covering Afghanistan, like Rukshana Media and Zan Times. What led you to found it in 2016?

    Karimi: Siddiqi and I both taught at Herat University. As a professor of journalism, I witnessed my female students struggle and face a lack of resources and opportunities every day. The disparity between them and my male students was blatantly obvious. Lack of access to media equipment, gender inequality in the newsroom, harassment and discrimination was a daily reality for these women.

    In light of this, I decided to create a safe environment for my female students to publish their stories, [to] access media equipment and the internet eight years before the Taliban takeover. Although the Taliban was not yet in power, the extremist ideology had already begun to spread rapidly.

    Families were understandably concerned when their daughters went to school or the newsroom, but when we established this newsroom solely for women, almost all female journalists across Herat came to work there. As a professor, I had the trust of these women’s families. That’s why I, as a man, was able to set up this space and reassure the families that it was safe.

    Part of your staff is in exile, but you still have many female journalists based in Afghanistan. What’s their experience like?

    Karimi: All of our female reporters on the ground have to remain anonymous for their safety as per our contract. Their names are never published with their stories. There are currently 15 female journalists working with us, spread across 10 provinces. Some of them are our former interns whom we hired permanently and some of them are currently interns who receive training through Zoom, so that they can be the next generation of female reporters. All of them are actively reporting, even interns, as they learn and are simultaneously paid for their work.

    Siddiqi: It’s important to add that our reporters know each other by name only. Our reporters have never met or seen each other’s faces since we require them to turn their cameras off during virtual meetings. We are extremely strict about our security protocols in order to ensure that if one of our reporters faces Taliban retaliation, their colleagues will remain safe. Our reporters know that even a minor mistake can put our whole newsroom in danger.

    Illustration of icons of Afghan women in a teleconferencing call
    (Illustration: Tesla Jones-Santoro)

    It is obvious that these women are well aware of the danger that comes with being journalists. Why are they still in the country and choosing to report despite these risks?

    Siddiqi: From my understanding and through my conversations with them, there are two main reasons. One, these women are wholly committed to their work. When I am talking with them, I learn that they work more than eight hours a day because they love their job. They all know the impact that they are making in the current environment. Two, financial security is also a huge part of their choice to report. It is rare for women to work and receive salaries in the country under the Taliban. AWNA pays its journalists and this provides them with some level of control and financial independence.

    Karimi: These female journalists know that the stakes are very high. Many times I have told them that their security is our priority. We don’t want any report or story that puts their safety at risk, but they still don’t prioritize themselves. They prioritize their reporting. Nobody can stop them from making their voices heard even in the most repressive atmosphere.

    What is it like for you when your reporters are so far away while you are in exile?

    Karimi: To be honest, I am not comfortable. Sometimes I think something bad has happened to a colleague. Trying to minimize their risk is one of our strategies and biggest challenges. I am very concerned every single day.

    Have any of the female journalists working for AWNA had dangerous encounters with the Taliban?

    Siddiqi: Just a few days ago, one of our female reporters called me from Kabul while she was attempting to report on a business exhibition. Upon entering the venue, she was detained by the Taliban. In the commotion of a large crowd, she somehow managed to hide herself and escaped without facing arrest.

    I called her after that and I reiterated that this cannot be the norm. I told her that we cannot lose her and that without her, there would be no reporting. My colleague replied that she tries her best and knows all the newsroom security protocols. But even for non-political events, this is the risk and the reality for female journalists in the country.

    Illustration of Afghan woman reporter working late at night
    (Illustration: Tesla Jones-Santoro)

    How has reporting from exile shaped your view of the future of the media in Afghanistan? 

    Karimi: In my opinion, the lack of free and independent media in the country has created a need for reliable media in exile to combat Taliban propaganda and control. There is a lack of female-run media. We have bypassed the Taliban firewall by providing information from exile to empower people within the country, especially women.

    Siddiqi: There are so many Afghan women who are students, photographers, activists, and writers, as well as journalists who can no longer publicize their work on their own channels due to safety concerns. Many of them have found a place in AWNA in order to share their work and add value to the media atmosphere. These are all citizens and female journalists. There are thousands of women who have something to share, journalists by training or not, who are acting as citizen journalists. They have something to show and we are dedicated to uplifting it.

    Do you both hope to return to your country if things change?

    Siddiqi: I chose to leave my parents, siblings, everything in order to escape the regime.

    Life is not easy for me here. I left my memories and emotions in Afghanistan. Everyday these memories disturb me. I was educated and began my career in Afghanistan and I believe I owe my country.

    Karimi: Of course I hope to go back to my country. Right now, I feel that I have three lives as an exiled journalist: The first is the life I left behind in Afghanistan, which includes most of my family. Half of my mind and heart remains there. My second life is this one in exile where I am forced to rebuild my personal and professional life from scratch. My third life revolves around how to keep my colleagues safe and to honor their mission as female journalists. I am constantly navigating these three lives and it is a devastating reality.

    What is your hope for Afghan women journalists in the future?

    Siddiqi: There is no hope bigger than Afghan women having their basic human rights and access to education. If there is no education for women, there is no understanding of their reality and rights. If there is no understanding in a society, there is no justice. If there is no justice, we are no longer in a human society, but in a jungle. The Taliban has shut off all the doors that were once available for Afghan women and together, we are trying to pry them open.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Ananya Bhasin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • 10 December 2024: Human Rights Day

    Here a few highlights for this year from UN and NGOs sources:

    While commemorating the 76th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that “human rights are under assault”. “Whether economic, social, civic, cultural or political, when one right is undermined, all rights are undermined,” Guterres said in a post on X. “Let’s protect, defend and uphold all human rights for all people,” he added. In a video message, The UN secretary-general said “we must stand up for all rights — always.”

    Achim Steiner UNDP Administrator added his voice:

    ..As we mark Human Rights Day 2024, we are reminded that human rights are not abstract ideals. They are vital tools for addressing these pressing challenges and advancing dignity and justice for all. 

    … the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) works to support human rights solutions that strengthen accountability, protect communities and foster peace, recovery, and stability. This includes partnering with National Human Rights Institutions, which often represent the frontline defenders of human rights. … Local initiatives also remain key. That includes women in Somalia who are being supported to lead peace efforts including assisting those facing violence, discrimination, and injustice. “I have resolved numerous local disputes…I feel motivated when I see I have been able to change people’s lives positively,” says Fatuma who led a local Peace Working Group.

    As the accelerating climate emergency threatens the ability of current and future generations to enjoy their right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, UNDP is focusing on access to justice, working with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and OHCHR to help communities claim their rights. …The private sector also has a pivotal role to play. UNDP supports the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights including to advance sustainable practices that protect the environment. Indeed, technology offers both risks and opportunities to advance human rights. The Global Digital Compact aims to create an inclusive, open, safe, and secure digital space that respects, protects and promotes human rights. Tech-enabled UNDP tools like iVerify and eMonitor+ deployed in over 25 countries to monitor and address false narratives and hate speech show the potential. It is now crucial to adopt a rights-based approach to technologies like A.I., addressing ethical challenges, protecting data, and tackling biases to mitigate risks today and unlock immense benefits for the generations to come. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/09/27/united-nations-adopts-ground-breaking-pact-for-the-future-to-transform-global-governance/]

    ——

    The NGO Index on Censorship spotlights four people standing up for human rights around the world:

    Despite the declaration, all around the world human rights are being challenged, degraded and attacked. That is why this year, on Human Rights Day, we pay tribute to five human rights defenders who have worked tirelessly to defend people’s rights and have been persecuted as a result. 

    Jemimah Steinfeld, CEO at Index on Censorship said:  “In this increasingly polarised and authoritarian world these people stand out as beacons of hope and light. It’s depressing to think that over 75 years since the Declaration, we still need a day like this but that should not detract from the bravery and fortitude of these people. May their example show us all how we can all better fight injustice.” 

    Marfa Rabkova (Belarus) Marfa Rabkova is a human rights defender who has been behind bars since 17 September 2020. She has long been targeted by the Belarusian authorities as a result of her civic activism. Marfa became head of the volunteer service at the Human Rights Centre Viasna in 2019. During the 2020 presidential election, she joined the “Human Rights Defenders for Free Elections” campaign, which registered over 1,500 election observers. When peaceful protests began to take place after the election, she helped document evidence of torture and violence against demonstrators.  Marfa was indicted on a long list of charges, including inciting social hostility to the government and leading a criminal organisation. She was sentenced to 14 years and 9 months in prison in September 2022, after nearly two years of pre-trial detention. Index on Censorship calls for her immediate and unconditional release.  See also:
    https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/03/22/belarus-end-reprisals-against-human-rights-defenders/

    https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2024/12/human-rights-day-2024-a-tribute-to-human-rights-defenders/

    https://www.undp.org/speeches/administrators-statement-human-rights-day-10-december-2024

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails

    Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban

    Destitute Afghan women arrested for begging under draconian new Taliban laws have spoken of “brutal” rapes and beatings in detention.

    Over the past few months, many women said they had been targeted by Taliban officials and detained under anti-begging laws passed this year. While in prison, they claim they were subjected to sexual abuse, torture and forced labour, and witnessed children being beaten and abused.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Is Trump “the only hope we have”?

    RT ran a headline: “Putin must be ‘adult in the room’ on Ukraine conflict.” This is according to left-leaning comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore.

    “Joe Biden and the neo-cons in his administration have been constantly escalating war… What they’re trying to do is start a war that Donald Trump can’t stop,” warns Dore about a potential WWIII.

    “The only hope we have is that Putin shows restraint, that he is the only adult in the room and that he can hold off somehow until Donald Trump becomes president,” Dore opined in an interview with Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi.

    Is that the only hope? One can certainly come up with many other hopes. For example, a mass mobilization by US citizenry in Washington, DC. A general strike carried out by Americans, Canadians, and Europeans repulsed by their neocon-affiliated politicians. Or that Pentagon generals speak out vociferously and publicly against such dangerous provocations against Russia. Or that people charged with inputting the coordinates for missiles targeting Russia refuse to do so.

    Far-fetched? Maybe so, but isn’t that what a hope is — something far outside of the realm of a certainty?

    Or is Trump the only feasible hope? And can Trump be trusted? How many promises did he fail to come through on during his first term as president?

    Dore asserts that “Trump is not a warmonger” and that he “got elected on ending our foreign regime-change interventionist wars.”

    Trump may very well have been elected on the basis of ending foreign interventions by the US. However, that does not excuse him from being a warmonger.

    Early in the first Trump presidency, he sent in US fighters who killed dozens of Yemeni civilians, including children. Trump was now a war criminal.

    Did Trump end the US war on Afghanistan? No, he sent more American troops to Afghanistan.

    Did Trump end the US war on Syria? No. In fact, Trump said the troops would remain because “We’re keeping the [Syrian] oil.”

    Did Trump seek peaceful relations with Iran? No. In fact, Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA which was designed to halt Iran’s potential for becoming a nuclear-armed state. Trump’s strategy has set the stage for further nuclear proliferation. And if that was not enough, Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.

    However woeful the Biden presidency has been, one ought not to forget the first Trump presidency. Trump has a track record. It seems prudent to remove the rose-colored glasses and take into consideration that track record.

    But Trump was pressured by those around him. Trump had mistakenly saddled himself with warmongering neocons in his previous administration like Nikki Haley, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, etc. But is he different now?

    Trump’s new for Director of national security policy in the White House, Sebastian Gorka, exhibited his diplomatic decorum by referring to Russian president Vladimir Putin as a “murderous former KGB colonel, that thug.” According to Gorka, Trump is going to threaten Putin by telling him: “You will negotiate now or the aid that we have given to Ukraine thus far will look like peanuts.” Which serious-minded observers believe that Putin is now shaking in his pants?

    Does this inspire hope in Trump?

    Finally, does anyone have an iota of hope that Trump will do right in the Middle East when it comes to Israel?

    The post Is Trump “the only hope we have”? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Breaking News: The Laureates of the 2024 Martin Ennals Award are….

    Two outstanding human rights defenders who have made it their life mission to protect human rights in Afghanistan and in Tajikistan will receive the Martin Ennals Award 2024 on November 21th, 2024, in Geneva, Switzerland, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Martin Ennals Award.

    The Jury of ten of the world’s leading human rights NGOs – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, FIDH, HURIDOCS, Bread for the World, Human Rights First, World Organisation Against Torture, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Front Line Defenders – has selected, after much deliberation, the two human rights defenders whom it strongly believes deserve to be recognized and honored in 2024, on the 30th anniversary of the Martin Ennals Award. [see also: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/043F9D13-640A-412C-90E8-99952CA56DCE]

    The two 2024 Laureates, Zholia Parsi (Afghanistan) and Manuchehr Kholiqnazarov (Tadjikistan) have shown exceptional courage and determination to bring human rights at the forefront despite evolving in deeply repressive environments.

    “We are very proud to honor these two exceptional Laureates. They have paid too big a price for justice and equality to be respected in Afghanistan and Tajikistan and the international community must support their efforts instead of battling geostrategic interests in the region“.
    – Hans Thoolen, Chair of the Martin Ennals Award Jury

    The two Laureates 2024:

    Zholia Parsi: is a teacher from Kabul, Afghanistan. Having lost her career and seeing her daughters deprived of their education with Taliban takeover in August 2021, she founded the Spontaneous Movement of Afghan Women (SMAW) to protest the return of policies and practices against women rights and fundamental freedoms. She displayed remarkable leadership and resilience in organizing numerous public protests despite the risks involved. The grassroots movement that is the SMAW quickly grew momentum in Kabul and other provinces, now counting 180 members and having mobilized communities to resist the Taliban’s policies and practices.
    She was arrested in the street by armed Taliban in September 2023, and detained along with her son. She was released after three months of torture and ill-treatment under their custody, which further strengthened her resolve to resist Taliban oppression and repression.

    Manuchehr Kholiqnazarov: is a Pamiri human rights lawyer from the Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast (GBAO), Tajikistan. He is serving a 16 year-long prison sentence after what is widely considered an unfair trial in retaliation for his human rights work.
    As Director of the Lawyers’ Association of Pamir (LAP), he led strategic advocacy efforts in the GBAO, a region marked by its ethnic minority and historical tensions with the central government, including by lobbying for the incorporation of international human rights standards into domestic law and practice, and by providing legal support to residents of the GBAO.
    Through the human rights initiatives Commission 44 and Group 6, he played a key role in investigating the death of youth leader Gulbiddin Ziyobekov in November 2021, and the violent repression of subsequent mass protest in the regional capital Khorog. The investigation resulted in critical evidence of an unlawful killing, possibly an extrajudicial execution of the young man, and the unlawful use of force of security forces against protesters, resulting in two deaths, seventeen injured and hundreds detained.
    He was arrested on 28 May 2022 together with two other members of Commission 44 amid a widespread crackdown on local informal leadership and residents of the GBAO.

    The Martin Ennals Award (MEA): 30 years alongside human rights defenders

    The Martin Ennals Award (MEA) was given for the first time in 1994 to recognize, promote and protect human rights defenders at risk or from under-reported contexts. Over the years, the MEA has offered defenders a platform to issues that are of global concern and the means to steer the movement for human rights and larger freedoms.
    The MEA culminates every year in a public ceremony in Geneva, co-hosted with the City of Geneva (Ville de Genève). The 2024 MEA Ceremony will take place on November 21th, 2024 at the Salle communale de Plainpalais. The Ceremony, which is also livestreamed, draws many local and international human rights supporters to an inspiring event which celebrates the achievements and commitment of exceptional human rights defenders.
    “Geneva has a long tradition of hosting international diplomacy and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The City of Geneva is proud to co-host the Martin Ennals Award and shed light, on this 30th anniversary, on the impressive resilience of two human rights defenders and the hope they bring for peace and equality” concludes Alfonso Gomez, Administrative Counselor of the City of Geneva.

    https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/martin-ennals-award-2024-laureates-announced

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/martin-ennals-award-to-reward-rights-activists-from-afghanistan-tajiskitan-on-its-30th-edition/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Who Control’s Afghanistan’s Stolen Assets: A Factsheet

    In August 2021, following the withdrawal of major U.S./NATO military forces from Afghanistan after two decades of occupation, Taliban forces took effective control over the country. In response, the United States seized the assets of Afghanistan’s central bank totaling around $7 billion. Half of that amount was transferred to the misleadingly named “Afghan Fund” in September 2022, a Swiss-based “charitable foundation” whose only role thus far has been to privately conceal and invest the funds without any concrete plans to return them, as confirmed by U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Thomas West. This runs contrary to popular demands by experts and humanitarian organizations who argue that a return of the funds is desperately needed now more than ever to help everyday Afghans.

    Afghan women do not have any representation on the board of the “Afghan Fund,” nor do they have any official say over whether the assets should be returned. The board of trustees includes: two men selected by the U.S. State Department, Anwar ul-Haq Ahady and Shah Mehrabi, the U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs Jay Shambaugh, and Swiss government official Ambassador Alexandra Baumann.

    According to a July 2024 press statement from the board of the “Afghan Fund,” some of the stolen assets may also be disbursed to the Asian Development Bank, an institution controlled by the United States, Japan, and Australia via majority shareholder status. While the funds are not returning to the Afghan people, this move shows that a process to return the funds to Afghanistan can begin immediately if the board members agree to do so. Regardless of whether the funds are in fact disbursed elsewhere over time, board members Ahady, Mehrabi, Shambaugh, and Baumann are all culpable in the forced starvation and impoverishment of tens of millions of Afghans – tantamount to the collective punishment of the Afghan people.

    According to a January 2024 written testimony by the U.S. Congress-established Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), the remaining $3.5 billion in sovereign funds held in the United States may eventually be transferred to the “Afghan Fund” depending on litigation filed by the families of 9/11 victims and other plaintiffs, while other funds held in Europe and the United Arab Emirates may also be added to the “Afghan Fund.” SIGAR found that none of the funds in the “Afghan Fund” as of early 2024 have been spent, are planned to be spent, or will ever be used to provide humanitarian or development assistance. Notably, while no disbursements have been made for the benefit of the Afghan people, portions of the over $340 million in interest that have been accrued from the stolen assets are being used to pay for the “Afghan Funds” operational and administrative costs.

    The sudden deprivation of access to its sovereign assets led to a sharp economic and financial crisis in Afghanistan in 2021, which a recent United Nations Development Program (UNDP) study found is disproportionately affecting women and children. The seizure of assets combined with both U.S. and UN sanctions – ostensibly only targeting the Taliban – have hurt ordinary Afghans and aid organizations, affirmed by US-aligned rights groups and media outlets. The same UNDP report found that 69% of Afghans “do not have adequate resources for basic subsistence living,” while an estimated 15.8 million Afghans – including nearly 8 million children – are expected to experience “acute food insecurity” throughout 2024.

    Clearly, the “Afghan Fund” – controlled by Western officials and Afghan compradors – has deliberately withheld billions from the suffering Afghan populace. It should be reiterated that a process to return these stolen funds, and in turn mitigate the U.S.-enabled humanitarian and economic crises plaguing Afghanistan, can and must begin right away. The following individuals have full power or influence over the release of the illegally stolen assets back to its rightful owners: the Afghan people.

    Jay Shambaugh

    Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs

    • Visiting Associate Professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University
    • Former Consultant to the International Monetary Fund (2005, 2008, 2011-2013)
    • Former Director of the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution (2017-2020)
    • Former Member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors (2015-2017)
    • Former Chief Economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers (2009-2011)

    Alexandra Baumann

    Head of the Prosperity and Sustainability Division at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

    • Former Diplomatic Advisor of the Head of the Swiss Federal
    • Department of Finance
    • Previously worked in the Swiss Embassies in Chile and
    • Germany, and the Swiss Mission to the UN in New York

    Anwar ul-Haq Ahady

    Former government official, economic advisor and central banker to the U.S./NATO occupied Afghanistan

    • Former Minister of Commerce and Industry (2010-2013) and Minister of Agriculture (2020-2021)
    • Former Minister of Finance and Advisor of National Economy to the U.S./NATO-backed President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai (2004-2009)
    • Previously responsible for overseeing Afghanistan’s central bank, Da Afghanistan Bank (2002-2004)

    Shah Mehrabi

    Member of the Supreme Council of Da Afghanistan Bank

    • Professor of Economics at Montgomery College in Maryland
    • Former Senior Economic Advisor to previous Ministers of Finance under U.S./NATO occupied Afghanistan

    Thomas West

    U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Deputy Assistant Secretary

    • Former Vice President at a private global strategic advisory firm, the Cohen Group (2016-2021)
    • Former Special Advisor at the UN National Security Council to the U.S. Vice President for South Asia and the U.S. Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan (2012-2015)
    • Former U.S. State Department senior diplomat in Kunar Province, Afghanistan (2011-2012)
    • Former Special Assistant for South and Central Asia to the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2008-2010)
    The post Who Control’s Afghanistan’s Stolen Assets: A Factsheet first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • How the Taliban are erasing Afghanistan’s women – photo essay

    The journalist Mélissa Cornet and the photographer Kiana Hayeri met more than 100 Afghan girls and women in seven provinces, and found resistance and defiance but also despair

    Earlier this year, I spent 10 weeks travelling with the photographer Kiana Hayeri across seven provinces of Afghanistan, speaking to more than 100 Afghan women and girls about how their lives had changed since the Taliban swept back to power three years ago.

    Hayeri and I both lived in Afghanistan for years, and remained here after the Taliban took control in August 2021. In the past few years, we have seen women’s rights and freedoms, already severely curtailed, swept away as Taliban edicts have fallen like hammer blows.

    Mitra plays with children in Yamit district, near the Wakhan mountains. Her daughter and her cousin, who were both grade 11 pupils aged about 17, took their own lives in these pools last year

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.